Latest news with #IranianGenerals
Daily Mail
23-06-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Quit the regime in 12 hours or you and your family are next, Mossad tells Iranian generals
Israel 's shadowy intelligence agency Mossad threatened Iranian generals and their families with imminent assassination if they did not quit the Ayatollah's regime, it has been revealed. The country launched its first wave of strikes on Iran on June 13, targeting military leaders and top nuclear scientists. And in the hours after the first wave, intelligence operatives from Mossad began a covert campaign to intimidate and destabilise Tehran's regime by calling them on their personal mobile phones. The Washington Post reported that Persian-speaking Mossad agents called over 20 senior officials in Tehran and told them they'd be killed if they did not renounce the rule of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader. One Israeli operative reportedly told a senior general: 'I can advise you now, you have 12 hours to escape with your wife and child. Otherwise, you're on our list right now.' He reportedly added: 'We're closer to you than your own neck vein. Put this in your head. May God protect you.' This general, who the newspaper did not name, was told he had just 12 hours to make a video denouncing the regime. He reportedly seemed willing to go through with the plan at the time, asking the Mossad agent: 'How should I sent it to you?' It is not currently clear if the general ever made the video, though the Washington Post reported that the man is believed to still be alive and in Iran. The Mossad psychological warfare operation doesn't appear to have deterred Iran, who tonight fired upon an American base in Qatar after US president Donald Trump ordered his military to attack Iranian nuclear sites over the weekend. There were no US casualties, Donald Trump said as he dismissed the attack as a 'very weak response', adding that Washington was warned by Tehran in advance. 'Most importantly, they've gotten it all out of their 'system,' and there will, hopefully, be no further HATE,' the US president posted on Truth Social. Qatar condemned the attack on Al Udeid Air Base but said it intercepted the short and medium-range ballistic missiles. Iran said the volley matched the number of bombs dropped by the US on Iranian nuclear sites over the weekend, adding that it targeted the base because it was outside populated areas. Those comments, made immediately after the attack, suggested Tehran wanted to de-escalate with the US, something Mr Trump said after the strikes early on Sunday on Iran. He said Iran might be able to 'now proceed to Peace and Harmony' and he would encourage Israel to do the same. However, Israel's war on Iran continued, with the Israeli military expanding its campaign on Monday to target sites symbolic for the country's theocracy. Iran announced the attack on Qatar on state television as martial music played. A caption on screen called it 'a mighty and successful response' to 'America's aggression'. Meanwhile, a US military official said no American bases in Iraq were targeted but a malfunctioning Iranian missile aimed at Israel had triggered an alert in Iraq earlier in the day. It came after reports that Iraqis had said they were informed by US officials that missiles had been launched towards the the Ain al-Assad base housing US troops in western Iraq. Iran fired 19 missiles at the base in Qatar, and one impacted the facility but caused no casualties, a Qatari military officer said. Major General Shayeq Al Hajri told reporters that seven missiles were fired initially from Iran and all were intercepted over the water between the two countries by Qatari air defences. Iran then fired 12 more missiles and 11 were intercepted over Qatari territory, but one hit the US base, Maj Gen al Hajri said. It was not clear how much damage was caused by the missile. Mr Trump said 14 missiles were fired, 13 were brought down and one was 'set free' because it posed no threat. The Al Udeid base is home to the Combined Air Operations Centre, which provides command and control of air power across the region, as well as the 379th Air Expeditionary Wing, the largest such unit in the world. Just before the explosions, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian wrote on the social platform X: 'We neither initiated the war nor seeking it. But we will not leave invasion to the great Iran without answer.' The retaliation came a day after the US launched a surprise attack on Sunday morning on three of Iran's nuclear sites.
Reuters
23-06-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
Israel signals Iran campaign can end soon but much hinges on Tehran
JERUSALEM/TEL AVIV, June 23 (Reuters) - Israel is looking to wrap up its campaign in Iran soon and has passed the message on to the United States, according to three Israeli officials, though much depends on its adversary's next move. According to two other officials, Israeli leaders are trying to work out the precise exit strategy that will conclude the campaign and end Iran's missile and drone attacks, to avoid tit-for-tat strikes paralysing the country. Another source briefed on the matter said that the military has signalled that it was close to achieving its goals. But although Israel picked the moment to launch its surprise strike on Iran, it cannot control when the conflict ends and risks being drawn into a costly war of attrition if Tehran chooses to extend the fight, officials and analysts say. Since unleashing its offensive in the early hours of June 13, Israel has killed senior Iranian generals and nuclear scientists, dismantled air defence systems, and struck multiple atomic-related sites and ballistic missile facilities. "We are not there yet but it looks more like a matter of days than weeks," said Eran Lerman, a former Israeli deputy national security adviser, in comments that chimed with the views of the three Israeli officials. "The end game is not that far from an Israeli point of view." On Sunday, Israel received a significant boost when the U.S. Air Force joined the hostilities, hitting three Iranian nuclear complexes with massive, bunker-busting bombs that Israel does not have in its arsenal. Hours later, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told reporters that Israel was close to meeting its objectives and had no desire to prolong the operation. "We won't pursue our actions beyond what is needed," he said. "When the objectives are achieved, then the operation is complete and the fighting will stop." That could prove wishful thinking. On Sunday and Monday, Iran fired barrages of ballistic missiles across the length of Israel, sending millions of people fleeing into bunkers as interceptor rockets sped into the sky knocking out most, but not all, of the incoming projectiles. The missile barrages have killed 24 civilians and damaged or destroyed hundreds of buildings, rendering thousands homeless. Tel Aviv, Israel's commercial hub, has been a frequent target. Israel has moved into a tightened wartime posture: non-essential businesses are closed, schools are shut and its airspace sealed to all but a handful of flights. Israel's vibrant economy cannot afford prolonged lockdown. And Israelis have already been growing increasingly weary of the war against Iran's ally Hamas in Gaza, triggered in 2023 by the Palestinian militant group's October 7 2023 attack. Military and government officials have acknowledged that the duration of Israel's campaign hinges on Tehran. "It depends on the Iranians," one military official said last week. If Iran refrains from further escalation, officials believe there is a case for ending the operation sooner rather than later. Analysts say Iran may choose to minimise the significance of the U.S. strikes, consolidate power internally, and maintain limited missile fire on Israel using its surviving launchers. "The only option is to continue shooting at Israel, which they will do, but in a very calculated way," said Sima Shine, a former Mossad official and analyst at the Institute for National Security Studies. "They understand their capabilities aren't endless, so they're rationing them." Two European diplomats said Tehran would have to signal a willingness to de-escalate. But one warned that, if Iranian Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei felt secure, he might choose to prolong the conflict, making it a drawn-out confrontation. Israel's strikes on Monday against Iranian ruling symbols were a message to Tehran, said Lerman. "It's meant to indicate to the regime, to Khamenei that a war of attrition could be a very costly business for him and for the survival of his power structure." Netanyahu said that if Iran dragged out its attacks, Israel would launch strikes that would "exact a price from the Iranian regime". Netanyahu, asked whether he and U.S. President Donald Trump saw eye to eye on how the war should conclude, said he could think of a few mechanisms to end it but declined to offer details. "We're in a time of war," he said. "There's the fog of battle ... I am working closely with President Trump." For now, hope of a negotiated off-ramp remains alive but uncertain. "This could end like it often does with Hamas—Israel declaring its objectives achieved and offering to stop if the other side does," said Shine, referring to past conflicts between Hamas militants and Israel in Gaza. "But Iran is not Hamas. A negotiated agreement would be a better outcome." Yuli Edelstein, chairman of the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee, said Israel would not accept a one-sided halt. "A unilateral stop on our part would mean (Iran) firing at our civilians," he said. "The ball, to a certain extent, is in Khamenei's hands and he himself has yet to decide," Edelstein told Israel's N12 News.
Yahoo
19-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
As Israel strikes Iran, many wonder if the US will deepen its involvement
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — As Israeli strikes kill top Iranian generals, take out air defenses and damage nuclear sites, many wonder if President Donald Trump will deepen U.S. involvement in the conflict. Trump has long railed against what he refers to as the 'stupid, endless wars' waged by his predecessors, including in Afghanistan and Iraq, where the U.S. helped overthrow governments. But with Iran's government looking increasingly fragile, if the U.S. does get involved, its strikes could help severely damage the country's nuclear program or even end its 4-decade-old theocracy. 'I may do it, I may not do it,' Trump said in an exchange with reporters at the White House about whether he has decided to order a U.S. strike. 'I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do.' But the recent history of U.S. attempts to remake the Middle East by force is one of costly blunders and colossal failures — and there are plenty of hard-earned lessons for anyone who wants to try it again. Initial success is often fleeting U.S. special forces and Afghan allies drove the Taliban from power and chased Osama bin Laden into Pakistan within months of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. American tanks rolled into Baghdad weeks after the 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Both wars went on for years. The Taliban waged a tenacious insurgency for two decades and swept back into power as the U.S. beat a chaotic retreat in 2021. The overthrow of Saddam plunged Iraq into chaos, with Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias battling each other and U.S. forces. Israel may succeed in taking out Iran's air defenses, ballistic missiles and much of its nuclear program. But that would still leave hundreds of thousands in the military, the Revolutionary Guard and forces known as the Basij, who played a key role in quashing waves of anti-government protests in recent years. Ground forces are key but do not guarantee success Airstrikes have never been enough on their own. Take Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi, for example. His forces withstood a seven-month NATO air campaign in 2011 before rebels fighting city by city eventually cornered and killed him. There are currently no insurgent groups in Iran capable of taking on the Revolutionary Guard, and it's hard to imagine Israeli or U.S. forces launching a ground invasion of a mountainous country of some 80 million people that is about four times as big as Iraq. A split in Iran's own security forces would furnish a ready-made insurgency, but it would also likely tip the country into civil war. There's also the question of how ordinary Iranians would respond. Protests in recent years show that many Iranians believe their government is corrupt and repressive, and would welcome its demise. But the last time a foreign power attacked Iran — the Iraqi invasion of 1980 — people rallied around the flag. At the moment, many appear to be lying low or leaving the capital. Be wary of exiled opposition groups Some of the biggest cheerleaders for the U.S. invasion of Iraq were exiled opposition figures, many of whom had left the country decades before. When they returned, essentially on the back of U.S. tanks, they were marginalized by local armed groups more loyal to Iran. There are several large Iranian opposition groups based abroad, but they are not united and it's unclear how much support any of them has inside the country. The closest thing to a unifying opposition figure is Reza Pahlavi, the son of the shah who was overthrown in the 1979 Islamic Revolution that brought the theocracy to power. But many Iranians have bitter memories of repression under the shah, and others might reject Pahlavi over his outreach to Israel, especially if he tries to ride to power on the back of a foreign invasion. Chaos is practically guaranteed In Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya — and in Syria and Yemen after their 2011 uprisings — a familiar pattern emerged when governments were overthrown or seriously weakened. Armed groups emerged with competing agendas. Neighboring countries backed local proxies. Weapons flowed in and large numbers of civilians fled. The fighting in some places boiled over into full-blown civil war, and ever more violent extremist groups sprouted from the chaos. When it was all over, Saddam had been replaced by a corrupt and often dysfunctional government at least as friendly to Iran as it was to the U.S. Gadhafi was replaced by myriad militias, many allied with foreign powers. The Taliban were replaced by the Taliban.
Al Jazeera
18-06-2025
- Politics
- Al Jazeera
Iran-Israel conflict raises alarm in Pakistan amid fears over own security
Islamabad, Pakistan – In January 2024, Pakistan and Iran fired missiles into each other's territory in a brief military escalation between the neighbours. Yet 17 months later, after Israel attacked Iran with strikes on the latter's nuclear facilities, and assassinated multiple Iranian generals and nuclear scientists, Pakistan was quick to condemn the Israeli action. Islamabad described the Israeli strikes as violations of Iran's territorial sovereignty and labelled them 'blatant provocations'. 'The international community and the United Nations bear responsibility to uphold international law, stop this aggression immediately and hold the aggressor accountable for its actions,' Pakistan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement on June 13. As Israeli attacks on Iran, and Tehran's retaliatory strikes, enter their sixth day, the deepening conflict is sparking fears in Islamabad, say analysts, rooted in its complex ties with Tehran and the even greater unease at the prospect of the Israeli military's aerial influence extending close to the Pakistani border. The human toll from the spiralling Israel-Iran conflict is growing. Israel's attacks on Iran have already led to more than 220 deaths, with more than a thousand people injured. In retaliation, Iran has launched hundreds of missiles into Israeli territory, resulting in more than 20 deaths and extensive property damage. While Pakistan, which shares a 905km (562-mile) border with Iran via its southwestern province of Balochistan, has voiced staunch support for Tehran, it has also closed five border crossings in Balochistan from June 15. More than 500 Pakistani nationals, mainly pilgrims and students, have returned from Iran in recent days. 'On Monday, we had 45 students who were pursuing degrees in various Iranian institutions return to Pakistan. Almost 500 pilgrims also came back via the Taftan border crossing,' the assistant commissioner for Taftan, Naeem Ahmed, told Al Jazeera. Taftan is a border town neighbouring Iran, situated in the Chaghi district in Balochistan, which is famous for its hills where Pakistan conducted its nuclear tests in 1998, as well as the Reko Diq and Saindak mines known for their gold and copper deposits. At the heart of the decision to try to effectively seal the border is Pakistan's worry about security in Balochistan, which, in turn, is influenced by its ties with Iran, say experts. Pakistan and Iran have both accused each other of harbouring armed groups responsible for cross-border attacks on their territories. The most recent flare-up occurred in January 2024, when Iran launched missile strikes into Pakistan's Balochistan province, claiming to target the separatist group Jaish al-Adl. Pakistan retaliated within 24 hours, striking what it said were hideouts of Baloch separatists inside Iranian territory. The neighbours patched up after that brief escalation, and during Pakistan's brief military conflict with India in May, Iran studiously avoided taking sides. On Monday, Minister of Foreign Affairs Ishaq Dar addressed Parliament, emphasising how Pakistan had been speaking with Iran and suggesting that Islamabad was willing to play a diplomatic role to help broker an end to the military hostilities between Iran and Israel. 'Iran's foreign minister [Abbas Araghchi] told me that if Israel does not carry out another attack, they are prepared to return to the negotiating table,' Dar said. 'We have conveyed this message to other countries, that there is still time to stop Israel and bring Iran back to talks.'. Minister of State for Interior Talal Chaudhry told Al Jazeera that other nations needed to do more to push for a ceasefire. 'We believe we are playing our role, but the world must also do its duty. Syria, Libya, Iraq – wars devastated them. It even led to the rise of ISIS [ISIL]. We hope this is not repeated,' he added. Fahd Humayun, assistant professor of political science at Tufts University and a visiting research scholar at Stanford, said that any Pakistani bid to diplomatically push for peace would be helped by the fact that the administration of President Donald Trump in the United States is also, officially at least, arguing for negotiations rather than war. But Umer Karim, a Middle East researcher at the University of Birmingham, suggested that for all the public rhetoric, Pakistan would be cautious about enmeshing itself too deeply in the conflict at a time when it is trying to rebuild bridges with the US, Israel's closest ally. 'I doubt Pakistan has the capacity or the will to mediate in this conflict, but it definitely wants it to wind down as soon as possible,' he said. Pakistan's greatest concern, according to observers, is the potential fallout in Balochistan, a resource-rich but restive province. Rich in oil, gas, coal, gold and copper, Balochistan is Pakistan's largest province by area but smallest by population, home to about 15 million people. Since 1947, Balochistan has experienced at least five rebellion movements, the latest beginning in the early 2000s. Rebel groups have demanded a greater share of local resources or outright independence, prompting decades of military crackdowns. The province also hosts the strategic Gwadar port, central to the $62bn China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), linking western China to the Arabian Sea. Baloch nationalists accuse the state of exploiting resources while neglecting local development, heightening secessionist and separatist sentiments. Baloch secessionist groups on both sides of the border, particularly the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) and the Balochistan Liberation Front (BLA), have been waging a rebellion in Pakistan to seek independence. 'There is a major concern within Pakistan that in case the war escalates, members of armed groups such as BLA and BLF, many of whom live in Iran's border areas, might try and seek protection inside Pakistan by crossing the very porous boundaries shared by the two countries,' Abdul Basit, a research fellow at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore, told Al Jazeera. 'Thus, Pakistan had to shut down the crossing in an attempt to control the influx. It remains to be seen whether they can successfully do that, but at least this is their objective.' Since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, waves of Afghan refugees have sought shelter in Pakistan. The latest mass entry occurred after the Taliban took over Kabul in August 2021. At their peak, there were close to 4 million Afghans living in the country. In 2023, however, Pakistan launched a campaign to send the refugees back to Afghanistan. According to government estimates, close to a million of them have been expelled so far. Pakistan has cited rising incidents of armed violence in the country, which it blames on groups that it says find shelter in Afghanistan, as a key justification for its decision. The Taliban reject the suggestion that they allow anti-Pakistan armed groups sanctuary on Afghan territory. Basit said Pakistan would likely want to avoid any repeat of what happened with Afghan refugees. 'With such a long border [with Iran], and a history of deep connection between people of both sides, it is not out of realm of possibility that it was this factor which factored in Pakistan's decision to close the border,' he added. Baloch armed groups and the prospect of a refugee influx are not the only concerns likely worrying Pakistan, say experts. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has claimed that his air force has control over Tehran's skies. And while both Israel and Iran continue to strike each other's territory, Pakistan, which does not recognise Israel and views it as a sworn enemy, will not want Israeli influence over the Iranian airspace to grow and creep towards the Iran-Pakistan border. 'Pakistan is also averse to Israel achieving complete air superiority and control of Iranian airspace, as it would upend the current security status quo on Pakistan's western flank,' Karim, the University of Birmingham scholar, told Al Jazeera. Security analyst Ihsanullah Tipu Mehsud, based in Islamabad, noted that Pakistan has historically sided with the US in regional wars, including in Afghanistan, but may hesitate this time. A majority Sunni nation, Pakistan still boasts a significant Shia population – more than 15 percent of its population of 250 million. 'Pakistan has already dealt with sectarian issues, and openly supporting military action against [Shia-majority] Iran could spark serious blowback,' he said.
Wall Street Journal
17-06-2025
- Politics
- Wall Street Journal
Live Q&A: Ask Us Your Questions About the Iran-Israel Conflict
What questions do you have about Israel's attack on Iran and the potential consequences? The surprising strikes by Israel on June 12 dealt a devastating series of blows to Iran, killing three top Iranian generals and key nuclear scientists and hitting sites linked to the country's nuclear programs. The moves by Israel could upend global markets and remake geopolitics.
